Why is it socially acceptable to stereotype and vilify white women as a whole?

[TheTERFnextDoor]

I've seen this a lot recently, often from other white women bizarrely, and I don't understand why it's socially acceptable?

I think it goes without saying that in most groups, you get good and bad people. White women are surely no different in that respect? Yes, many of them are privileged, and they don't face the discrimination that other categories might. I accept that. However, that doesn't change the fact that they aren't some homogeneous mass of people, surely?

I am genuinely trying to learn here, so I'd appreciate all responses, particularly those that disagree

@BernardBlacksMolluscs I’m absolutely genuinely baffled why it needs an explanation?
A black man articulating the counter productiveness of woke-anti-racism towards achieving real change and a uk white woman disliking the notion that they are supposed to feel guilt by virtue of their birth?

I’m still not quite clear on your meaning. Do you find JMcW an “uncomfortable” read because he is black or because he holds a different opinion to you on what anti-racism means and how to address that? Or is it the combination of those things that you find unpalatable?

I’ll give you a clue - the reasons why you and he despise ‘woke anti-racism’ are worlds apart

Also still not clear what this means?

Great post @DresdenChina

@Signalbox
yes it’s uncomfortable if you have read and bought into white fragility (as I did) to hear him describe how this is entirely counterproductive.

I disagree on balance with his sentiment but many of his points cannot be ignored. So a whole lot more credible than Anna from the DWP who thinks it’s wrong to hold events to attract women, BAME and LGBT people to have careers in the met police…..

What a very revealing post!

@DemiColon has articulated very clearly 'the counter productiveness of woke-anti-racism towards achieving real change'. Did you miss her post here:

As far as maternal outcomes, one of the unfortunate things about the ideology of edi type thinking is it looks at disparities, and assigns any disparity to racism (or, in the feminist version of this thinking, sexism,) and that tends to obscure any serious research into what the actual material causes are. Adolph Reed wrote a really good paper on this some years ago that's well worth reading.

If we want to know who is responsible to make changes, or what those changes should be, it really requires specifically identifying the causes of the disparity. Including things like doing a much more specific analysis of the numbers, controlling for other factors, etc. The big advantage of this is that it is much more likely to be successful at addressing the specific problem than just throwing around cash.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4816954-why-is-it-socially-acceptable-to-stereotype-and-vilify-white-women-as-a-whole?page=20&reply=126607844

Is she not allowed to do that because she is a white woman? Is she only allowed to object on the grounds that she dislikes the notion that she is supposed to feel guilt by virtue of her birth?

But thank you for admitting that part of this messed up ideology is that white people are supposed to feel guilt by virtue of our birth.

Whiteness as original sin? People won't go for that because it's extremely racist.

1. She was not objecting to an event designed to attract women, BAME and LGBT people, she was objecting to an event that specifically excluded straight white men, on the grounds that she believed it to be unlawful.

2. The lawfulness of the event was never tested in court because DWP settled. It may or may not have been lawful under the accommodation for 'positive action' in the EA.

3. Whether the event was lawful or not makes no difference to Ms Thomas's claim for victimisation. Her objection to the event was still a protected act.

4. She was not only complaining about this event but about a whole slew of CRT material emanating from the DWP's 'Anti-racism Hub'.

5. She won.

@LangClegsInSpace
JM is presenting a well researched, structured argument which, despite being a polemic, has the deep, deep desire to see permanent change achieved at its heart.

Anna thinks events to promote careers to underrepresented groups in the police is discrimination despite the Met being the organisation to introduce the landmark legal change on positive discrimination. She shouldn’t have been sacked for whilstleblowing but she’s a fucking moron.

So there are your two standpoints.

Nasty ablist slurs now?

Do you believe that white women's objections to CRT can only ever be shallow?

Of course not - as I said, if people are reading and understanding and formulating tangible viewpoints that may be different to mine but lead to more action and change, well then all
good.

Holding up Anna as some kind of hero though….

Nothing at all about the Anna Thomas case suggests to me that she's a "fucking moron"? I'm actually quite confused at that, it's a viscerally harsh reaction.

I ask because your objection to Anna's case is similar to your objection to @DemiColon citing JMcW. You don't take either of them seriously.

I don't know enough about Anna to know if she's some kind of hero or not. She had a good case and I'm glad she won.

You may remember that I brought her up in the first place because of your suggestion that making white people feel uncomfortable was a better strategy than not judging or excluding people based on their ethnicity:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4816954-why-is-it-socially-acceptable-to-stereotype-and-vilify-white-women-as-a-whole?page=19&reply=126603093

I am suggesting that any strategy has a greater chance of success if it is at least lawful. It's not a very high bar.

@FrostyFifi

1. The Met is in a crisis situation due to ingrained old fashioned ways of policing that lead to horrifically poor treatment and inequitable approaches to minority groups
2. one of the main causes of this is under representation of minority groups in the met. This leads to general distrust in the public toward the met and a lack of understanding of the issues on an internal level in order to change policy and practice
3. Inquiries into stephen Lawrence (and many other less high profile cases) led the met to appreciate it was institutionally racist and that drastic action was needed. In order to assist the met with assessing underrepresentation of BME groups a statute was passed to allow the met (and only the met) to actively hire people of colour. The first ever permissal of positive discrimination in the uk.
4. positive discrimination of this nature is still not legal now anywhere else in the sense that an advert for eg a finance manager cannot say only people of colour can apply. However it is legal and extremely common practice to hold promotional career or recruitment events for minority groups. It doesn’t actually mean however that (in this case) a white man is not afforded the same opportunity to apply for the same role. Just that the event is specifically targeting women, lgbt and bame people. It’s awareness raising. Very common practice.

So what Anna was objecting to was not even discrimination and even if it was it could yet have been legally permissible in the case of the met.

So what did his being black have to do with anything?

The majority of women in the U.K. whose behaviours have been described as that of a “Karen” are not poverty stricken, illiterate, jobless, authorities fearing women that you are describing!

The vast majority are privileged middle class, educated women weaponising their education, familiarity and connections with the authorities and class to engage in racist behaviours.

The majority of women in the U.K. whose behaviours have been described as that of a “Karen” are not poverty stricken, illiterate, jobless, authorities fearing women that you are describing!

The vast majority are privileged middle class, educated women weaponising their education, familiarity and connections with the authorities and class to engage in racist behaviours.

This is utter nonsense. The word is frequently used on social media to slur any middle aged or elderly woman who speaks up about something, especially here in the U.K. where any recently coined racial aspect is often non existent.

Karen is not primarily a middle class name here.

Ah, you’re back, @HadalyEve . Have you found your calculator?

The whole point of the OP is that you don’t have to do anything to be called a Karen, except be a woman with an opinion.

What Lucy said.

I’m absolutely genuinely baffled why it needs an explanation?
A black man articulating the counter productiveness of woke-anti-racism towards achieving real change and a uk white woman disliking the notion that they are supposed to feel guilt by virtue of their birth?

I’m still baffled by this. Are you saying white women should feel guilt by virtue of their birth?

And are you saying white women in the UK who agree with JMcW are not doing so because they agree with his arguments but because they are annoyed that someone is banging on about privilege and white women tears?

No one who approves of "Karen" seems to have answered my early question whether it would be appropriate to have distinct names for the way in which different races of men are misogynistic.

Yes women such as billionaire JK Rowling or MP Jess Phillips have been called Karens, not illiterate penniless women sleeping rough on the streets.

By the way, how are these illiterate and penniless women who cannot even write an email even active on social media? And how would you know that about them from social media? Is it not the case that you’d need to be a) literate and b) not penniless to even be able to be on social media to be called a Karen?

I seem to remember @BernardBlacksMolluscs was once called racist here simply for making her own judgment on CRT as a white woman. We seem to have gone back to that.

Yes women such as billionaire JK Rowling or MP Jess Phillips have been called Karens, not illiterate penniless women sleeping rough on the streets.

There are many degrees between those women, no?

By the way, how are these illiterate and penniless women who cannot even write an email even active on social media? And how would you know that about them from social media? Is it not the case that you’d need to be a) literate and b) not penniless to even be able to be on social media to be called a Karen?

How literate do you suppose one has to be to write posts on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram?